BvS Is Batman justified when he refuses to kill? Do you wish he was more like Superman?

[Marvin]

It's weird...Zod wanted to terraform earth to make it like Krypton because the change to become godlike was too painful...yet it only took minutes and didnt seem very painful...and again...he became godlike!

The better plan would have been to terraform Mars...take all the embryos there and set up a new Krypton a few blocks away from Earth, building a godlike army. Zod's plan was really, really stupid if his goal was to bring back the race.

Don't blame me for thinking that you don't go from powerless to all-powerful in a second, when it took Superman 30 years to realize his full powers.

I will blame you when it's clear it took Zod 2 days.

If you landed on a planet full of ant hills and someone asked you to move to mars(a place with no water mind you), I'm pretty sure you'd do what any villain would do. Take what's yours lol.
The greater strategy is to rid the planet of humans that might later rise up against you and zod had a great plan for that. He also thought he and his superior numbers could deal with Kal.

zod is a trained and focused general, probably brought up through pain himself. Not all the kryptonian children will have such a fun time. I mean CLARK DIDN'T.

 

[Heretic]

You wouldn't see my sacrificing myself for the planet. Or pretty much dedicating my life to saving strangers, especially at the age when I was riding school buses. I'm flattered but MOS features a man far more moral than I.

Secondly, jesus "clearing an area by whipping people is pretty hardcore I guess(though it was never clear as to what he actually did with the cords, just that he drove the petty people out of the temple). But I'm talking about the man of tomorrow that punches his enemies square in the face? The one that uppercuts them in their chins, the one that drops double fists on their back lol.
The god that fires, fire from his eyes down upon his enemies....on a daily basis.
For the record, Jesus was against violence. He'd die before he lay a violent finger on an enemy....but I don't know all to much about that stuff.

I do know this, the man said "love thy enemy" pretty sure Superman doesn't love lex. And I'm pretty sure you are ok with this.
Guess that makes him no better than you. Tough break.

Jesus also preached that you must hate your mother and father. He cursed a fig tree for not having fruit, despite it not being in season. he intentionally spoke in riddles to confuse people who were not Jewish, because they were not supposed to understand and accept the message...so he intentionally caused their eternal torture. Jesus was hardly perfect, as depicted.

 

[Heretic]

I will blame you when it's clear it took Zod 2 days.

If you landed on a planet full of ant hills and someone asked you to move to mars(a place with no water mind you), I'm pretty sure you'd do what any villain would do. Take what's yours lol.

zod is a trained and focused general, probably brought up through pain himself. Not all the kryptonian children will have such a fun time. I mean CLARK DIDN'T.

Zod spent much of his time on a ship that was using an artificial Kryptonian environment. Theoretically, he was also experiencing our suns rays...but didn't seem aware of it on the ship (if I remember correctly).

I don't really see Zod as a villain, and I'm not sure we were supposed to. He was doing what he thought was right...but those decisions kept being the ones that urt his own cause the most.

 

[Marvin]

Jesus also preached that you must hate your mother and father. He cursed a fig tree for not having fruit, despite it not being in season. he intentionally spoke in riddles to confuse people who were not Jewish, because they were not supposed to understand and accept the message...so he intentionally caused their eternal torture. Jesus was hardly perfect, as depicted.

Yet many think he was. That's the point.
Superman isn't always "prefect".

Like I said, lying seems below the "man of tomorrow," yet here we are.
You can't just pick and choose what's perfect and not so perfect as you see fit. You said you want him to be better than you fine. But both he and you lie so where does that leave us?

The prefect moral center stole some clothes when he was in need, hopefully he repents later by saving another bus or something. Apparently jesus spoke in riddles one time and it confused some jewish folkt:

 

[Heretic]

Yet many think he was. That's the point.
Superman isn't always "prefect".

Like I said, lying seems below the "man of tomorrow," yet here we are.
You can't just pick and choose what's perfect and not so perfect as you see fit. You said you want him to be better than you fine. But both he and you lie so where does that leave us?

The prefect moral center stole some clothes when he was in need, hopefully he repents later by saving another bus or something. Apparently jesus spoke in riddles one time and it confused some jewish folkt:

I wouldn't steal, and chose not to even in times when i desperately needed it. I don't lash out violently against people I didn't like (even when I thought they deserved it). I HAVE risked my own safety to save other people's lives (which, Superman's life is rarely in any danger).

Superman hides the truth...which is a bit like a lie, I suppose. But I am certainly a better man than Superman in Man of Steel, and I don't really consider myself that good of a person.

 

[Marvin]

I wouldn't steal, and chose not to even in times when i desperately needed it. I don't lash out violently against people I didn't like (even when I thought they deserved it). I HAVE risked my own safety to save other people's lives (which, Superman's life is rarely in any danger).

Superman hides the truth...which is a bit like a lie, I suppose. But I am certainly a better man than Superman in Man of Steel, and I don't really consider myself that good of a person.

That's pretty remarkable. That, btw puts you above most of these other heroes in most of our comic book cinema. Not bad.

I assume you wouldn't snap zods neck if you were in the same position? So I'm curious what you would do, if you were in the same position..

 

[Tempest]

That's pretty remarkable. That, btw puts you above most of these other heroes in most of our comic book cinema. Not bad.

I assume you wouldn't snap zods neck if you were in the same position? So I'm curious what you would do, if you were in the same position..

Convenient. Plot. Device.

The answer to this question is for the people to fall back on the 'well if the script didn't suck and if they hadn't put Superman in this position, it wouldn't have had to happen anyway'.....even though Superman killed Zod in the comics too.

But let's forget about those. They aren't in THIS continuum, so they no longer count for anything.

 

[Marvin]

Well I was actually hoping for an answer that would shed light on the greater moral choice of the two.

To kill or not to kill.
Heretic does seem like the most qualified to answer, he is after all a better man/woman than most, or at least, greater than the imposter running around calling himself superman in MOS.
(of course clark never called himself that)

 

[DocHolliday]

The "Superman did this and that in earlier films" talk should stop.

The fact is that no one has ever completely gotten Superman right in the movies. Heck, he wasn't even really defined in the comics for decades after his debut. Even now, writers for the comics resist the definitive version of Superman because they would rather write a Wolverine story. It is not easy to write Superman. His weaknesses aren't necessarily the same as every other hero and his strengths are so overpowering.

Man of Steel though...that one REALLY got Superman wrong. He met a bully at a diner...and because he didn't like him...destroyed the man's transportation...which was also his source of income...AND it is entirely possible that the truck belonged to his employer...AND he probably was hauling goods that another company paid them to haul...AND he used power poles to do it, meaning that innocent people have been deprived of electricity (possibly people with medical needs that require it). All of that over what??? That is in addition to the theft, the lack of concern for saving anyone except Lois the multiple times she fell out of the sky, the neck snapping, watching his father die etc.

He destroyed a truck? So what. They have insurance for that.

In Superman II, Clark acts like a man-child. Yeah, the logical thing to do when someone offends you at a bar/diner is to pick a fight with them, right? At least Cavill's Superman had the good sense to walk away. Donner's Superman gets his ass beat in a fair fight at the diner and turns chicken**** in a manner of seconds. As soon as he gets his powers back, he turns into Super-bully and humiliates the guy...breaking a few of his bones in the process. And he smirks afterwords. Great role-model for the kids. If you can't beat someone in a fair fight, cheat.

And yeah, Superman showed a lot of concern for the welfare of the planet when he decided to selfishly give up his powers just because he got horny for Lois. Jor-El told him earlier that he was sent to Earth to save these people. Yeah, instead of saving them he wants to screw them. Great job, Kal-El - you just took a dump on your biological father's legacy. Or maybe he relinquished his abilities because he got tired of saving people. Again, great role model there. A hero that's too lazy to save people and would rather get laid while chilling at his palace in the North Pole.

Not to mention the consequences, hundreds(if not thousands) of people died during Zod's takeover of Earth. All because Suiperman got TIRED of using his powers. At least Cavill's Superman made his mistakes early on due to inexperience. In Superman II, he'd been doing this for years and one day just decided to give up. Possibly the worst story element in any superhero film...ever - an apathetic hero. And the sad thing is multiple comics/movies have been inspired by this junk. The Spider-Man comics in the 90s ripped off this terrible idea in a story that involved Spidey giving up his powers because he was tired of having the responsibility of saving people(ugh). Hancock - a snarky film about an apathetic hero. Spider-Man II is another one. The funny thing is it's incredibly EASY to fix this mistake - just have a villian take away his powers. Having the superhero give up his powers by choice will ALWAYS result in the hero looking like a whiny brat. Don't blame Man of Steel, the groundwork for the "modern superhero" was already laid down in Superman II.

And the the neck-snapping isn't any different than what the comics themselves did in the late 80s. Superman depowered Zod and his cronies in the Pocket Universe. They were defenseless and at his mercy. And what does he do? Tortures them with an agonizing radiation death. Same thing in Superman II - drops the depowered villains down a deep ice crevice...killing them.

 

[Tempest]

He destroyed a truck? So what. They have insurance for that.

In Superman II, Clark acts like a man-child. Yeah, the logical thing to do when someone offends you at a bar/diner is to pick a fight with them, right? At least Cavill's Superman had the good sense to walk away. Donner's Superman gets his ass beat in a fair fight at the diner and turns chicken**** in a manner of seconds. As soon as he gets his powers back, he turns into Super-bully and humiliates the guy...breaking a few of his bones in the process. And he smirks afterwords. Great role-model for the kids. If you can't beat someone in a fair fight, cheat.

And yeah, Superman showed a lot of concern for the welfare of the planet when he decided to selfishly give up his powers just because he got horny for Lois. Jor-El told him earlier that he was sent to Earth to save these people. Yeah, instead of saving them he wants to screw them. Great job, Kal-El - you just took a dump on your biological father's legacy. Or maybe he relinquished his abilities because he got tired of saving people. Again, great role model there. A hero that's too lazy to save people and would rather get laid while chilling at his palace in the North Pole.

Not to mention the consequences, hundreds(if not thousands) of people died during Zod's takeover of Earth. All because Suiperman got TIRED of using his powers. At least Cavill's Superman made his mistakes early on due to inexperience. In Superman II, he'd been doing this for years and one day just decided to give up. Possibly the worst story element in any superhero film...ever - an apathetic hero. And the sad thing is multiple comics/movies have been inspired by this junk. The Spider-Man comics in the 90s ripped off this terrible idea in a story that involved Spidey giving up his powers because he was tired of having the responsibility of saving people(ugh). Hancock - a snarky film about an apathetic hero. Spider-Man II is another one. The funny thing is it's incredibly EASY to fix this mistake - just have a villian take away his powers. Having the superhero give up his powers by choice will ALWAYS result in the hero looking like a whiny brat. Don't blame Man of Steel, the groundwork for the "modern superhero" was already laid down in Superman II.

And the the neck-snapping isn't any different than what the comics themselves did in the late 80s. Superman depowered Zod and his cronies in the Pocket Universe. They were defenseless and at his mercy. And what does he do? Tortures them with an agonizing radiation death. Same thing in Superman II - drops the depowered villains down a deep ice crevice...killing them.

How about in the comics when Superman gets moody and emo, and runs away? -facepalm-

Seriously, people need to read Superman Day of Doom. It does rehash the Doomsday drama, but I loved this POV, and the end was rather poignant.

A few people confront Superman about the massive death toll that happened while he was fighting Doomsday. And they point out how unfair it is that all those people died, and Superman was the only one who got to come back. It even talks about how, if it weren't for Superman, Doomsday wouldn't have come to earth at all, so really, the whole thing is Superman's fault.

At the end of the comic, he talks about how he didn't have time to think about saving every person, because the heat of battle doesn't allow you the luxury of time.

It concludes with Superman talking about how afraid he was that he would lose to Doomsday, and what would happen if that happened. Then he asks if the world would be better off without him.

Would there be fewer Doomsdays? Or more Coast Cities? (Coast City was wiped out by Mongul and the Cyborg Superman while Superman was dead).

Superman is never going to be perfect. He can't save everyone. And sometimes, yeah, he has to be brutal. He has to end things, because the risk to the world is too large.

Do I think that his policy makes him greater than Batman? In some ways, yeah. Sometimes you have to think which is worse; allowing something evil to escape time and time again, to bring more and more harm to the world, or to stop them before they hurt anyone else?

I don't think Batman should turn assassin, but he needs to get off his high horse, show some balls, and finally kill the Joker in one of their battles. By refusing to do so, Batman is continuously putting Gotham -- and on a smaller scale, the rest of the world -- in danger by not ending the Joker's life.

 

[Krumm]

It was about sure shock value. Snyder/Goyer made Clark Kent into a violent redneck. Sorry, somebody had to say it.

I'm not even going to try to comprehend this.

 

[Marvin]

That sounds like an interesting book Temp.

It's sad that the producers have to tip toe around such issues or rather circumstances with this property because they are dealing with an audience much like our pal here who is fiercely set in his ways.
I stand by my statement that these producers made the braver, bolder choice to not play it safe and make the simple more obvious decisions. Even if that means people will accuse them of incompetence and lack of understanding.

They have faith and conviction in their decisions and it might just yield bigger rewards in the end. I think much of the rewards started opening day. I heard lots of people walk out after the credits with all sorts of discussions. Def not the way thy walked out of SR.

The follow up should shed some light on the state of things.

I disagree on the batman killing the joker though. Unlike a good number of superman threats, the joker isn't some immediate live ending threat. He simply presents a continual unpredictable one. I think you had it right above, batman should just take jokers incarceration into his own hands. That's how I would end batman's career personally.
Joker in a prison under wayne manor being watched over by wayne till the ends of their days.

 

[Tempest]

That sounds like an interesting book Temp.

It's sad that the producers have to tip toe around such issues or rather circumstances with this property because they are dealing with an audience much like our pal here who is fiercely set in his ways.
I stand by my statement that these producers made the braver, bolder choice to not play it safe and make the simple more obvious decisions. Even if that means people will accuse them of incompetence and lack of understanding.

They have faith and conviction in their decisions and it might just yield bigger rewards in the end. I think much of the rewards started opening day. I heard lots of people walk out after the credits with all sorts of discussions. Def not the way thy walked out of SR.

The follow up should shed some light on the state of things.

I disagree on the batman killing the joker though. Unlike a good number of superman threats, the joker isn't some immediate live ending threat. He simply presents a continual unpredictable one. I think you had it right above, batman should just take jokers incarceration into his own hands. That's how I would end batman's career personally.
Joker in a prison under wayne manor being watched over by wayne till the ends of their days.

If the Joker were in the middle of murdering someone, I'm less interested in Batman trying to save his life, is all I'm saying.

Personally, I'd be happy if the writers had the Joker accidentally spork himself in the eye and die from a brain injury. I'm really sick of him as a character. I know, I know, blasphemy. But, I hate clowns. And the Joker is just annoying.

 

[DocHolliday]

Personally, I'd be happy if the writers had the Joker accidentally spork himself in the eye and die from a brain injury. I'm really sick of him as a character. I know, I know, blasphemy. But, I hate clowns. And the Joker is just annoying.

The simplest solution is to just not have him appear in the comics at all. There was a period in the 70s when the Batman books had no costumed villains appear for a few years.

But, yeah, I know how you feel. Overexposure tends to sour some characters on people. Wolverine's immense popularity made Marvel unreadable for me years ago. Putting him on the Avengers was the last straw.

 

[SentinelMind]

It's a great point. But it raises an interesting discussion. Can you try and make superman an interesting protagonist by conventional standards and still make purists of this particular character absolutely happy?

I believe a good, thoughtful screenwriter can make an epic Superman story on the big screen. The problem is WB doesn't have the patience and they need to spit out a big blockbuster that appeals to all the movie-going demographics at a carnal, immediate level so they can keep stockholders happy and not lose license to the character. That's why this character goes through so much development hell. It's not like Marvel. WB has to make a movie for every character right away or they lose it. Marvel on the other hand can take time to get it right.

I'm not looking for a perfect Clark Kent, I understand he's not God, he's a fictional character...but I think the length he'll go to do right thing...say having moral caliber in 98th percentile of humanity makes him very interesting (and yet challenging) character.
I don't have a limited imagination...a good Superman story can be put on the big screen...it may not be incarnation everyone likes. WB feels you have to Nolanize, Snyderize, and Marvelize Superman to make him relevant. I don't think that's good enough for long-term franchise.

 

[Tanin]

I don't want Batman to kill simply because he needs to work with the police. If he starts killing people he crosses a line even Gordan couldn't look past.

 

[Marvin]

I believe a good, thoughtful screenwriter can make an epic Superman story on the big screen. The problem is WB doesn't have the patience and they need to spit out a big blockbuster that appeals to all the movie-going demographics at a carnal, immediate level so they can keep stockholders happy and not lose license to the character. That's why this character goes through so much development hell. It's not like Marvel where they have make a movie for every character right away or they lose it. They can take time to get it right.

So what you are saying is marvel has to has to make a movie or they lose rights...And WB has to make a superman movie or they will lose the rights? I'm missing something I think.

I'm not looking for a perfect Clark Kent, I understand he's not God, he's a fictional character...but I think the length he'll go to do right thing...say having moral caliber in 98th percentile of humanity makes him very interesting (and yet challenging) character.
I don't have a limited imagination...a good Superman story can be put on the big screen...it may not be incarnation everyone likes. WB feels you have to Nolanize, Snyderize, and Marvelize Superman to make him relevant. I don't think that's good enough for long-term franchise.

I agree, I also happen to think that's what we got.

I also think it's alot closer to the so called ideal than we have been given on screen, lest I again pull out the long list of self absorbed silliness embedded in the donner/puzo universe.

I also think there is new ground being treaded here, this is always the danger of a year one that pertains to a character embedded in our culture. It's like the risk of a young moses/young jesus story, sure to confuse folks.

Some of the arguments I've read pick apart character flaws in mos as if they are they work of the devil, when you yourself say he doesn't need to be perfect. It begs the questions of where do you draw the line? Can he not litter without fans in outrage? The reality is that unlike other heroes superman didn't just try and kill the enemy outright and then joke about it and make out with his girl friend. That would be what you are referring to as "Marvelized". Funny enough because of this perfect god expectation, what he in fact did has been perverted into "redneck" behavior.
The begging and pleading and sobbing and circumstance kinda fly in the face of that accusation...but people don't care. It's just too much for them. Which is why I for one say, the producers aren't dealing with a rational audience here so why even bother. Just make your movie.

In this movie Superman spent 30 years of his life saving strangers before he ever met jor el and put on a costume. That alone trumps most other adaptations for this character. He really was super from the start.

 

[Bathead]

I don't want Batman to kill simply because he needs to work with the police. If he starts killing people he crosses a line even Gordan couldn't look past.

This is true. Batman killing would ruin one of the most important relationships in the entire Batman mythos. It would likely ruin his relationships with just about everyone he works with, from Alfred right thru Robin, Batgirl, Nightwing ... etc.

 

[SentinelMind]

So what you are saying is marvel has to has to make a movie or they lose rights...And WB has to make a superman movie or they will lose the rights? I'm missing something I think.

my typo,....I meant Marvel doesn't have to make movies right away....WB does...I think if they didn't start production right away after Superman Returns they'd have to pay millions.

either way, I think, all else being equal....I think Superman movie is harder to make than ..say Iron Man, given their character.

 

[Lencho01]

What would've been cool to see is exploring how pretty much the concept of Batman as we know him is simply something a child can really come up with. Thus, we see a different view of why Batman can be considered crazy or at least damaged. So, all that coupled with Superman's vow of never killing because he was raised that way in conjunction of having the power to see how we're all connected similar to what was done in All-Star. But, I wouldn't go as far as Birthright by making him not want to eat animals.

But, given how MOS turned out, I don't see that happening with this version with the character. Maybe in whatever reboot they do in the next 20 years.

This is true. Batman killing would ruin one of the most important relationships in the entire Batman mythos. It would likely ruin his relationships with just about everyone he works with, from Alfred right thru Robin, Batgirl, Nightwing ... etc.

Good point. And it's kinda like what Morrison said when he commented on how much people say superheroes should kill their enemies in general and brought up how unless you're in the army or a cop, it's illegal to kill.

 

[Loki882]

I still have yet to see anyone make a convincing argument that Superman WASN'T a good person in MOS. Pretty much everything he did in the film was completely selfless.

 

[Marvin]

Good point. And it's kinda like what Morrison said when he commented on how much people say superheroes should kill their enemies in general and brought up how unless you're in the army or a cop, it's illegal to kill.

it confuses the issue immensely. First he says killing is wrong unless you have a gov't sanction(not sure what this says on the moral issue). So then to him it's a matter of legality...not one of morals persay.
Yet these two characters are practicing vigilantes(illegal)...one of which has faked their citizenship(illegal).

I don't get it tbh

 

[Marvin]

my typo,....I meant Marvel doesn't have to make movies right away....WB does...I think if they didn't start production right away after Superman Returns they'd have to pay millions.

either way, I think, all else being equal....I think Superman movie is harder to make than ..say Iron Man, given their character.

Yea only MOS' production was anything but rushed.

I agree about superman being harder than Ironman, at least for the modern audience. Ignoring the fact that you don't have to maneuver about a billion preconceptions, you also don't have to worry about a previous film with IM.

I'd arge the ending to im3 is about 4 times as ruthless and brutal and callous than anything in mos, yet not one word about too violent for kids. Superman is definitely harder to make for everyone.

 

[Lencho01]

it confuses the issue immensely. First he says killing is wrong unless you have a gov't sanction(not sure what this says on the moral issue). So then to him it's a matter of legality...not one of morals persay.
Yet these two characters are practicing vigilantes(illegal)...one of which has faked their citizenship(illegal).

I don't get it tbh

I don't see what's so confusing about it. Any one of us can't just go out there killing people or we'd get in trouble with the law (if they found out). As far as morals go, I think it's just these guys are simply against killing. That's just their individual stances on the issue.

Vigilantism and citizenship are not part of the issue, so it's not brought up.

 

[Marvin]

I don't see what's so confusing about it. Any one of us can't just go out there killing people or we'd get in trouble with the law (if they found out). As far as morals go, I think it's just these guys are simply against killing. That's just their individual stances on the issue.

Vigilantism and citizenship are not part of the issue, so it's not brought up.

It confuses the issue because Morrison clearly states that you can kill people if you are a cop or in the army. That means, if the gov't says it's ok than it's ok.

This means that the only issue Morrison really has with killing is that it's against the law if you aren't a cop. So it's a legal issue not a moral one. He's fine with killing just as long as it's legal.

He's seemingly basing his morals on a matter of gov't laws and not virtue ethics. Which confuses the issue because both superman and batman break bunch of laws in the simple fact that they are both vigilantes.
How does he feel about that?

My question is, what is his issue with killing exactly? That it's wrong or that it's against the law?